I have said it for years, the only way to deal with the harvest portion of the problem is to close mixed stock fisheries. There are very powerful forces that will make Option 3 difficult (if not impossible) but it is the right thing to do.

_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"

One of the other reasons for closing down mixed stock fisheries is that the people who protect the freshwater habitat get rewarded by having fish in their river to catch. They bear the day to day costs of habitat protection.

WDFW has been known to tell folks that if they will do habitat protection projects that any additional fish produced will be harvested before they get back to the project area.

They usually do not tell them. If jammed go into % / exploitation rate dance. Remember John M who worked with our team fencing and restoring the creek than ran through his property? 6 hrs after hearing the harsh truth he was done. I did not blame him a bit. In fact I would not recommend a property owner give up a damn thing until that agency starts to manage for a watershed health rather than how many fish it can kill.

Edited by Rivrguy (03/07/2008:49 PM)

_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Sad. I think we are seeing "bucket biology" that moves pike, walleye, and bass around because (for a lot of reasons, some of which are good) WDFW can't seem to get any other fish too fishermen. I suspect that fairly soon the LW walleye fishery will make folks forget sockeye. It will be a whole lot longer. There already is a great early-season small fishery in the lake. Anglers are taking stuff into their own hands. Or buckets.

Without a doubt the simplest and fastest way to increase the numbers of fish returning to the our rivers is by addressing the harvest piece of the 4 Hs. In the region of the State that I'm most familiar with (Puget Sound) there are a number of examples of where harvest has been reduced by lowering exploitation rates. I remember clearly discussions in the 1990s and early 2000s that the lower of harvest rates of Puget Sound Chinook would buy time for the hoped for habitat restoration efforts to kicking in leading to increased fish abundance and even recovery.

That approach has colluded full force with the harsh reality that at least to this point our society has proven to be unable or unwilling to take meaningful actions leading to an overall improvement habitat conditions that might ultimately lead to improved status of our salmon. There are examples illustrating collectively we have wasted that time reduced fishing bought recovery efforts.

It is now clear that any resource impacts gained by reducing fishing (harvest) and most cases has been merely converted to increased impacts used by the habitat and hydro impacts and not to produce more fish.

It should be clear to all that society view fishing to be a low priority use of any productivity that salmon stocks may have. It now appears that reducing fishing today only means that there will be less fishing in the future.

They usually do not tell them. If jammed go into % / exploitation rate dance. Remember John M who worked with our team fencing and restoring the creek than ran through his property? 6 hrs after hearing the harsh truth he was done. I did not blame him a bit. In fact I would not recommend a property owner give up a damn thing until that agency starts to manage for a watershed health rather than how many fish it can kill.

That. Plus, we shouldn't placate the Tribes' demands to fix culverts 20 miles from where any salmon has been seen by any living person on the public dime until the deal comes along with a corresponding increase in escapement goals in the system hoped to benefit. That's called skin in the game, and any party without it isn't a serious or trustworthy partner in a co-management strategy.

Not sure this is the right thread but I think it is a good discussion. So this, recognizing that all human activity harm the natural order and fish are very vulnerable just what part of this mess does harvest play? In other words if a judge shut down all OCEAN salmon impacts both directed and incidental what would the returns be? Twice or three times as large?

For Chinook it would take at least five years to get the true number as harvest would need to be removed on each year of the marine life cycle. Then the impact of incidental catch in other commercial fisheries which some say exceeds actual targeted harvest. A number thrown around is 84% of the harvestable Chinook are removed one way or another prior to entering WA waters. So I will throw out my guess based on the fact that I believe the harvest impacts in the ocean are vastly underestimated and say five years out the terminal Chinook run size would triple for a similar year environmentally. No other change but harvest.

So look at numbers from the past & present, good years and bad. Look at ESA stocks and how the numbers would change. Simply put the only way this mess is truly understood is to get marine impacts out of the picture. I think one would be amazed at what would happen. For GH guys think of it this way the high in years was a 40k year and low was around 6k with a something around 15k a average. ( bit of a guess but good number off the model ) Now times 3 and if the ocean impacts were removed our average returns would be around 45k terminal. Think about it.

Edited by Rivrguy (03/08/2009:12 AM)

_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Funny, Rivrguy. Back in the 80s, it was "known" that PS salmon stocks entered PS by way of the Straits of JDF. None come down inside Vancouver Island. Then, in a fit of conservation, Canada closed its chum fisheries in Johnstone for 4 years. The result? The Nooksack chum run exploded. From 20-30K to north of 100K and more. Maybe they had good survival. But, when Johnstone reopened the run declined.......

I can't remember where I heard it, but there are rumbles that the decline in Yukon Chinook is due to by catch in black cod (?) fisheries. The kicker is that the number of salmon in the fishery is minuscule (so the fishery is clean) it is just a majority of the run.

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 2831
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...

Originally Posted By: Rivrguy

Not sure this is the right thread but I think it is a good discussion. So this, recognizing that all human activity harm the natural order and fish are very vulnerable just what part of this mess does harvest play? In other words if a judge shut down all OCEAN salmon impacts both directed and incidental what would the returns be? Twice or three times as large?

For Chinook it would take at least five years to get the true number as harvest would need to be removed on each year of the marine life cycle. Then the impact of incidental catch in other commercial fisheries which some say exceeds actual targeted harvest. A number thrown around is 84% of the harvestable Chinook are removed one way or another prior to entering WA waters. So I will throw out my guess based on the fact that I believe the harvest impacts in the ocean are vastly underestimated and say five years out the terminal Chinook run size would triple for a similar year environmentally. No other change but harvest.

So look at numbers from the past & present, good years and bad. Look at ESA stocks and how the numbers would change. Simply put the only way this mess is truly understood is to get marine impacts out of the picture. I think one would be amazed at what would happen. For GH guys think of it this way the high in years was a 40k year and low was around 6k with a something around 15k a average. ( bit of a guess but good number off the model ) Now times 3 and if the ocean impacts were removed our average returns would be around 45k terminal. Think about it.

Interesting to consider but would all other factors remain the same?

If hatchery production remained the same would predator numbers respond by increasing their numbers?

If hatchery production decreased due to a significant drop in license revenue would there be a significant drop in numbers of wild (ESA listed) salmonids as they become more vulnerable (greater percentage of the population) to predators?

Would an increase (should that occur) in population of esa listed species result in delisting which could lead to less habitat protection/restoration?

I need more coffee.......

_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

The kicker is that the number of salmon in the fishery is minuscule (so the fishery is clean) it is just a majority of the run.

THIS!

An otherwise very conservation-minded steelhead flyfisher was once my host for a weekend on the Skagit. Turns out he was heavily involved in the pollock fishery. When the conversation came up, he talked about how "clean" the fishery was.... millions of pounds of pollock to miniscule numbers of kings in their trawls. "We're NOT the problem"

Yes, I could appreciate his point.... but I wasn't blind to the bigger picture.

Cook Inlet's gillnets are capable of taking thousands of sockeye for every king encountered. Seems "clean" enough for the gillnetter. But those sockeye-directed nets typically snarf up 25-30% the entire chinook return over the course of a season.

CLEAN?

_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

While I don't agree that harvest has been cut back enough to bring on recovery, let's assume it has. Harvest is not the problem. The problem is habitat. We have had, with steelhead, Chinook, and SRKWs about 25 years or so to affect recovery.

WDFW just told us that the years of ESA coverage for Chinook have resulted in about 30% fewer wild fish than when listed. I thought the goal was more, not less.

So, harvest is not the problem, we have put all the money we are willing to into habitat, and we're losing ground. Time for the God Squad. Either we make progress (progress being more fish and whales, not less) or we move on. In which case we will need to re-open, rebuild, repair, and refund the hatcheries.

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 2831
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...

Originally Posted By: Carcassman

While I don't agree that harvest has been cut back enough to bring on recovery, let's assume it has. Harvest is not the problem. The problem is habitat. We have had, with steelhead, Chinook, and SRKWs about 25 years or so to affect recovery.

WDFW just told us that the years of ESA coverage for Chinook have resulted in about 30% fewer wild fish than when listed. I thought the goal was more, not less.

So, harvest is not the problem, we have put all the money we are willing to into habitat, and we're losing ground. Time for the God Squad. Either we make progress (progress being more fish and whales, not less) or we move on. In which case we will need to re-open, rebuild, repair, and refund the hatcheries.

Would the God Squad first require a significant reduction in predators?

_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

I don't know. I think they look at what has been going on and decide if restoration is possible in the current environment. Were I a God-squadder I would present the managers with a list of actions, a list of benchmarks to be met, etc. They would need to answer "yes" or "no" and would need to immediately meet the benchmarks. No meet, no more listing.

Would the God Squad first require a significant reduction in predators?

Good question. Since the amendment of the ESA in 1978, I believe there have only been six applications for exemption from the ESA made to the Endangered Species Act Committee (God Squad). Three were withdrawn, one was denied (Tellico Dam, TN), and two were granted (BLM Timber Sale, OR and Grayrocks Dam, WY and NE). The exemption for BLM timber sales in OR was later withdrawn.

Not much history to go on to figure out exactly how the system would work, and there has been a long time since the last action under this exemption process, close to 30 years I think.

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 2831
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...

Oncy T - Thanks for that information; makes for interesting reading.

Who may apply; as extracted from the first link:"In either case, the following are the categories of potential applicants that can apply for an exemption for a federal action despite its effects on listed species or their critical habitat:

the federal action agency interested in proceeding with the action,

an applicant for a federal license or permit whose application was denied primarily because of the prohibitions of ESA requiring that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species or harm to their critical habitats,

or the governor of the state where the action was to have occurred."

So, who's willing to jump in and change the paradigm?

Edited by Larry B (03/08/2004:22 PM)

_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Of course, to be fair to the tribe, the total west coast by catch was expected to be over 11,000. It is just harder to break down by area. ( from the federal register--- Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51683)

Looks to me like the God Squad is not the answer to changing the paradigm. I haven't read both references fully, but one statement stands out from the Congressional Research Service document: "Because projects are exempted, rather than species, the ESA still requires that species affected by the exempted project must be conserved in their remaining habitat."

Not exactly what I thought the God Squad could do. I was under the impression that they could write off an entire ESU. That does not appear to be the case.

Although habitat is a primary necessity for recovery it is pretty clear that our current river habitats are well below their carrying capacities and estimated productivity capabilities, even in their degraded state.

It is becoming ever clearer that a marine survival bottleneck also exists, stemming largely from food availability and continued declines in forage fish availability and zooplankton prey items for juveniles. Of particular concern are the affects of ocean acidification on the carapaces of shelled species, especially post-larval dungeness crap megalopa which are a key component of outmigrant smolt diets entering the marine environment.

Point being, although fisheries and particularly fisheries by-catch and northern intercepts are a major concern the environment itself is likely at the root of the problem. A warming and increasingly acidic ocean as a result of climate change is a much much larger nut to crack. If we can't even make the move to stop killing fish to save fish, I doubt humans as a species will be able to make the much larger sacrifices necessary to stop destroying the oceans to save fish.

_________________________
When I grow up I want to be,One of the harvesters of the sea.I think before my days are done,I want to be a fisherman.